Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[Bald Rick]

Whilst the location of Interchange is in the middle of a field (and an old MX Track), it is hardly out of the way. I pass it every day on my way down the A452

And of course it is currently in the middle of a field. When the railway is open, the rest of that ‘field’ will be rather attractive development land. Which is almost certainly part of Birmingham City Council’s local plan.

 

[Bald Rick]

If I may wade in, it's by no means an engineering impossibility to squeeze out one or maybe two additional platforms on the west side of the MML terminus. With some minor redesigns to the Pancras Rd. / Midland Rd. junction, which is a minor one-way road and a taxi rank south of the junction, and at most a partial demolition of the brick shop units opposite at their southern end, you could build a structure that does the job you ask with no impact on the British Museum and within a track profile that doesn't have a major impact on St. Pancras church. Close up Midland Road, send the bus traffic under the existing tunnel (which I'm fairly sure is profiled to accept double-deckers) to Pancras Road, and extend the taxi rank to take up an expanded subterranean area under the new structure. There may even be scope for an extended concourse for MML passengers in the freed-up space, which is sorely needed - the crush at the gates, lack of seating and cramped walk through the terminus from the current exit is one of the only disappointing aspects of an otherwise brilliant station.

An extra platform for St P was looked at a few years ago. To get just one in of sufficient width, and the track and supporting walls, you need about 10 metres outside the existing station footprint. To get two in, it’s about 15 metres. None of this includes working space for construction.

With just one platform, you get pretty close to the Francis Crick Institute, and then well within the grounds of St Pancras Church; with two platforms it gets seriously disruptive. There is also the small matter of having to build deep foundations through the Thameslink tunnels. Those with long memories may remember that when the new St Pancras was built the Thameslink tunnels were closed for 9 months so that they could be demolished, and an enormous box could be built around them (with the new low level station inside) which in part serves to support the station above. To build new platforms would require at least the same again.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh, and I believe The Ham posted a couple of questions to you which you haven't had the courtesy to respond to as yet.

As did I, more specifically a request for clarification, last Tuesday (Post #2532).

I’m still waiting for the clarification!

 

[The Ham]

As did I, more specifically a request for clarification, last Tuesday (Post #2532).

I’m still waiting for the clarification!

For those who would like an image of what the current growth looks like the image below may be useful.

It shows the likely train capacity used through the day based on different growth rates.

To get to the same level of growth as having 2.5% growth per year to 2026 we would have needed to exceed 52% growth since 2009. As it's 70% we are above that point.

In fact we are already comparable to ~3.2% per year to 2026 which puts us just under the mid point (3.75%) between the blue and red lines.

 

[Chester1]

The original report by HS2 lays out why Euston is the only realistic option for major station expansion, though burying a station under a royal park was deemed technically but not politically feasible:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ghspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3.pdf
The decision was subsequently confirmed in a useful study that addressed a wide range of the alternatives to HS2 and components of HS2 that are frequently proposed:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...16/Vol1_Alternatives_Report_CT-002-000_wm.pdf

I read that I while back. To clarify my post, I was arguing that the only practical way to give more London terminal capacity to the MML would be to redirect services into an expanded Euston. However, if you are going to spend a fortune building a tunnel in North London it might as well be Euston-Old Oak Common, which of course is the first section of HS2.

An extra platform for St P was looked at a few years ago. To get just one in of sufficient width, and the track and supporting walls, you need about 10 metres outside the existing station footprint. To get two in, it’s about 15 metres. None of this includes working space for construction.

I think its worse than just a lack of room for extra long distance MML services. At some point it is likely that HS1 will require more platforms and there is no space to the east of the station either. If HS2 and East West Rail western section get completed then the longer MML routes will struggle to justify platform capacity at St Pancras if Eurostar and South Eastern HS services continue to grow. The MML could be further marginalised in any future developments at St Pancras.

 

[Bald Rick]

I read that I while back. To clarify my post, I was arguing that the only practical way to give more London terminal capacity to the MML would be to redirect services into an expanded Euston. However, if you are going to spend a fortune building a tunnel in North London it might as well be Euston-Old Oak Common, which of course is the first section of HS2.

I think its worse than just a lack of room for extra long distance MML services. At some point it is likely that HS1 will require more platforms and there is no space to the east of the station either. If HS2 and East West Rail western section get completed then the longer MML routes will struggle to justify platform capacity at St Pancras if Eurostar and South Eastern HS services continue to grow. The MML could be further marginalised in any future developments at St Pancras.

St P has plenty of platforms, for HS1 don’t worry. It’s designed to deal with all that can be thrown at it.

 

[158756]

And of course it is currently in the middle of a field. When the railway is open, the rest of that ‘field’ will be rather attractive development land. Which is almost certainly part of Birmingham City Council’s local plan.

It's in Solihull, but yes they do have plans for it. I'd be very surprised if it gets anywhere near the claimed 20,000 jobs though. It will still be in the middle of nowhere in the sense that 95% of passengers using the station won't care what's there other than the car park.

 

[158756]

Double post

 

[Bald Rick]

It's in Solihull, but yes they do have plans for it. I'd be very surprised if it gets anywhere near the claimed 20,000 jobs though. It will still be in the middle of nowhere in the sense that 95% of passengers using the station won't care what's there other than the car park.

Oops; I don’t know my boundaries out there too well!

You’re probably right about the 95%, but in that respect it’s no different to Birmingham
International.

 

[Chester1]

St P has plenty of platforms, for HS1 don’t worry. It’s designed to deal with all that can be thrown at it.

Could it handle double the number of HS1 services?

 

[Bald Rick]

Could it handle double the number of HS1 services?

Comfortably in platform terms. Peak paths on HS1 and in the tunnel would be an issue. As would passenger processing capacity at St P (international area).

 

[underbank]

It's in Solihull, but yes they do have plans for it. I'd be very surprised if it gets anywhere near the claimed 20,000 jobs though. It will still be in the middle of nowhere in the sense that 95% of passengers using the station won't care what's there other than the car park.

There are a few places in Europe where a new railway interchange station has been built out of nowhere (fields or derelict ex industrial land) outside a city, which have prospered into new suburbs within 10/20 years with office blocks, shopping centres and hotels. No reason why that couldn't happen here.

 

[The Ham]

It's in Solihull, but yes they do have plans for it. I'd be very surprised if it gets anywhere near the claimed 20,000 jobs though. It will still be in the middle of nowhere in the sense that 95% of passengers using the station won't care what's there other than the car park.

At just under 40 minutes to Euston that's comparable to Guildford (45 minutes), there's lots of business located in Guildford who are there because they can get their staff to London when they are needed for meetings but with lower office space costs and not having to have all your staff needing to get to London (which reduces costs for cleaning, admin and lower grade staff who never/rarely need to attend the meetings in London) and for those staff who do they aren't going in every day and even the data which they do they aren't always having to do so at peak times. Also as travel is a business expense this gets passed on to the clients without the company having to absorb it in their overheads or the staff having to pay it or of their own pockets.

Guildford isn't an isolated case, at I'm sure that it's similar for Reading, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Bristol, Basingstoke, Farnborough and so on, basically anywhere within an hour by train of London.

As a case study there's a district council which has 3 stations which are within an hour of London and are seen as a commuter area for London, yet about 10% of workers do so. The vast majority work within the borough or in nearby boroughs, with there being a lot of companies using it as a base to access London as required.

However it's not just London which it would have easy access to:
East Midlands Hub, 17 minutes
Manchester, 37 minutes
Leeds, 46 minutes
Newcastle, 49minutes

With that sort of national reach I can see that it will allow companies to have one main office rather than several small satellite offices, which could be fairly attractive to smaller companies (bearing in mind that most people work for a company which had less than 250 staff).

 

[Bald Rick]

At just under 40 minutes to Euston that's comparable to Guildford (45 minutes), there's lots of business located in Guildford who are there because they can get their staff to London when they are needed for meetings but with lower office space costs and not having to have all your staff needing to get to London (which reduces costs for cleaning, admin and lower grade staff who never/rarely need to attend the meetings in London) and for those staff who do they aren't going in every day and even the data which they do they aren't always having to do so at peak times. Also as travel is a business expense this gets passed on to the clients without the company having to absorb it in their overheads or the staff having to pay it or of their own pockets.

Guildford isn't an isolated case, at I'm sure that it's similar for Reading, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Bristol, Basingstoke, Farnborough and so on, basically anywhere within an hour by train of London.

As a case study there's a district council which has 3 stations which are within an hour of London and are seen as a commuter area for London, yet about 10% of workers do so. The vast majority work within the borough or in nearby boroughs, with there being a lot of companies using it as a base to access London as required.

However it's not just London which it would have easy access to:
East Midlands Hub, 17 minutes
Manchester, 37 minutes
Leeds, 46 minutes
Newcastle, 49minutes

With that sort of national reach I can see that it will allow companies to have one main office rather than several small satellite offices, which could be fairly attractive to smaller companies (bearing in mind that most people work for a company which had less than 250 staff).

And next door to an airport....

 

[6Gman]

Comfortably in platform terms. Peak paths on HS1 and in the tunnel would be an issue. As would passenger processing capacity at St P (international area).

The arrangements for detraining the Javelins is less than ideal.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

One thing the HS2 detractors often seem to say is that whatever the current budget, the project will run over budget. This is justified by many examples of other recent infrastructure projects where this has happened. However, surely by the same logic, their alternative projects to mitigate cancelling HS2 would also be subject to the exact same likelihood of overspend?

 

[matacaster]

Manchester airport has lots of spare capacity and already goes to many international destinations. There is also a train station in the airport. Perhaps someone would like to explain why we northerners are expected to cross London with some difficulty and use Heathrow, but precious southerners cannot countenance travel by train to manchester in almost exactly the same time and with much less difficulty. This strategy would balance out west coast journeys make air travel from Manchester cheaper and remove need for a vast expansion of Heathrow and it's climate changing effects. Remember too that circa 35% Heathrow flights are holiday ones which arent as time critical.

This is important as much of the rational for HS2 is the perceived need to transfer loads of people to London, if the economy was rebalanced properly by taxation,and movement of parliament and givernment departments north, incentives

 

[Meerkat]

Most of that is sensible...apart from taking Parliament out of our huge capital city - that is just bonkers.

 

[Bald Rick]

Manchester airport has lots of spare capacity and already goes to many international destinations. There is also a train station in the airport. Perhaps someone would like to explain why we northerners are expected to cross London with some difficulty and use Heathrow, but precious southerners cannot countenance travel by train to manchester in almost exactly the same time and with much less difficulty. This strategy would balance out west coast journeys make air travel from Manchester cheaper and remove need for a vast expansion of Heathrow and it's climate changing effects. Remember too that circa 35% Heathrow flights are holiday ones which arent as time critical.

When HS2 is built to Manchester, I expect that Manchester Airport (at about an hour) and Birmingham Airport (at about 40 minutes) will become quite arrractive to people who are within easy access of HS2 in London. Of course it will still be more expensive to get to Manchester than a London airport, but there will be people who make the trip.

But before HS2 is built, of course, Manchester Airport is quite a pain to get to from London. Yes it’s possible, but not exactly quick or cheap compared to getting to London airports.

In any event, using up the capacity of Manchester to avoid building more capacity at Heathrow doesn’t resolve the climate change issue, and just transfers noise and local pollution up north.

 

[158756]

When HS2 is built to Manchester, I expect that Manchester Airport (at about an hour) and Birmingham Airport (at about 40 minutes) will become quite arrractive to people who are within easy access of HS2 in London. Of course it will still be more expensive to get to Manchester than a London airport, but there will be people who make the trip.

But before HS2 is built, of course, Manchester Airport is quite a pain to get to from London. Yes it’s possible, but not exactly quick or cheap compared to getting to London airports.

In any event, using up the capacity of Manchester to avoid building more capacity at Heathrow doesn’t resolve the climate change issue, and just transfers noise and local pollution up north.

It will rarely make sense to travel from London to Birmingham or Manchester airports though, even when HS2 is built (is it even certain whether phase 2, if built, will include the Manchester airport station?). Businesses and long haul travellers will always have vastly better options in London, and the price of the rail ticket will outweigh any cheaper Ryanair seats available. It only might make sense if London's airports are completely full to the extent ordinary people are priced out. On the other hand, if Heathrow expansion goes ahead, HS2 will be very useful for airport travel as people bypass Manchester/Birmingham etc in favour of Heathrow.

Of course by the time HS2 is built no one might be travelling to any airport because of climate change.

 

[The Ham]

One thing the HS2 detractors often seem to say is that whatever the current budget, the project will run over budget. This is justified by many examples of other recent infrastructure projects where this has happened. However, surely by the same logic, their alternative projects to mitigate cancelling HS2 would also be subject to the exact same likelihood of overspend?

There's one small error in the above post, I'm yet to see a viable alternative.

 

[Bald Rick]

It only might make sense if London's airports are completely full to the extent ordinary people are priced out. On the other hand, if Heathrow expansion goes ahead, HS2 will be very useful for airport travel as people bypass Manchester/Birmingham etc in favour of Heathrow.
.

That was my point in answer to the suggestion from another poster that spare capacity at Manchester Airport could be made use of rather than expanding Heathrow.

I agree, someone starting in London is not likely to go by train to Manchester Airport to catch a flight unless it is significantly cheaper, or if the flight times work better.

Birmingham Airport is a bit different though. Depending where’s you are starting from in London, it will be quicker to get there than to Stansted, and possibly Gatwick or Luton. And depending on fares (which itself will depend on the time of day), there may not be much in it price wise. You can see a scenario where someone working near (for example) Euston or some Crossrail stations will find it easier, quicker and cheaper to get a train to BHX rather than, say, Stansted, for a flight to somewhere in Europe.

 

[158756]

Birmingham Airport is a bit different though. Depending where’s you are starting from in London, it will be quicker to get there than to Stansted, and possibly Gatwick or Luton. And depending on fares (which itself will depend on the time of day), there may not be much in it price wise. You can see a scenario where someone working near (for example) Euston or some Crossrail stations will find it easier, quicker and cheaper to get a train to BHX rather than, say, Stansted, for a flight to somewhere in Europe.

We're going off topic a bit here, but the fact you have to get to Euston or Old Oak to get on HS2 is not going to encourage travel via Birmingham - wherever in the London area you start, Heathrow must be quicker, and unless, as you say, the starting point is Euston or a Crossrail station, at least one of Gatwick/Stansted/Luton must be more accessible as well. So we're talking about people willing to put a minimal cost saving over journey time and choice of flights - how many of them will live or work next to a major London station?

 

[Andrew1395]

We're going off topic a bit here, but the fact you have to get to Euston or Old Oak to get on HS2 is not going to encourage travel via Birmingham - wherever in the London area you start, Heathrow must be quicker, and unless, as you say, the starting point is Euston or a Crossrail station, at least one of Gatwick/Stansted/Luton must be more accessible as well. So we're talking about people willing to put a minimal cost saving over journey time and choice of flights - how many of them will live or work next to a major London station?

Price. If you live in Watford a package holiday from Birmingham can save you a fortune compared to flying from Luton. My daughter flew from Birmingham to Singapore because it was cheaper than Heathrow or Gatwick. In fact currently Birmingham airport by train from Watford is as convenient as Gatwick or Stansted.

 

[PR1Berske]

Price. If you live in Watford a package holiday from Birmingham can save you a fortune compared to flying from Luton. My daughter flew from Birmingham to Singapore because it was cheaper than Heathrow or Gatwick. In fact currently Birmingham airport by train from Watford is as convenient as Gatwick or Stansted.

Would you say getting to Birmingham is easy without having to travel to OOC or Euston to board HS2, particularly now we know that passengers aren't guaranteed seats on a £55bn railway with tickets costing around £100 return

 

[Andrew1395]

With HS2 there will still be classic WCML services to Birmingham International. Which still be better than West London Line, Clapham to Gatwick, or Watford Euston Victoria Line Highbury and Islington to Stansted. Currently I have to go to Euston from Watford to get a WCML service to Manchester and beyond . So going to Euston for HS2 won't be a hardship.

 

[158756]

Price. If you live in Watford a package holiday from Birmingham can save you a fortune compared to flying from Luton. My daughter flew from Birmingham to Singapore because it was cheaper than Heathrow or Gatwick. In fact currently Birmingham airport by train from Watford is as convenient as Gatwick or Stansted.

That's not on HS2 though, and it will probably still be easiest to make that journey on the WCML in the future. What I'm saying is HS2 doesn't create many new places where your situation exists. Sure it makes it quicker than it is now, but still less convenient than the existing London airports, even if London Birmingham or even London Manchester might happen one day.

 

[matacaster]

Most of that is sensible...apart from taking Parliament out of our huge capital city - that is just bonkers.

Whilst it may appear bonkers, there are quite a few countries that have moved their capitals, off the top of my head

West Germany Bonn-> Berlin
Brazil Buenos Aires -> Brasilia
Russia St Petersburg -> Moscow

and where no compromise was possible

Australia -> Tiny Canberra (simply because they couldn't choose between Melbourne and Sydney) Edinburgh and Glasgow watch out!

Not sure why it was chosen, but

USA Washington is not the biggest place in country

 

[Bald Rick]

Would you say getting to Birmingham is easy without having to travel to OOC or Euston to board HS2, particularly now we know that passengers aren't guaranteed seats on a £55bn railway with tickets costing around £100 return

Where did the £100 return come from?

 

[Bald Rick]

That's not on HS2 though, and it will probably still be easiest to make that journey on the WCML in the future. What I'm saying is HS2 doesn't create many new places where your situation exists. Sure it makes it quicker than it is now, but still less convenient than the existing London airports, even if London Birmingham or even London Manchester might happen one day.

As ever, the transport route choice for each trip is a balance for the individual based on price, frequency, journey time, and a few other factors (eg seat firmness ). The factors that are most important to each individual are of course their choice, as are the relative value of each. When Euston to Birmingham Airport is mor than half an hour quicker than it is today, that will clearly affect some inidividuals choices. Particularly if Birmingham starts advertising itself as a London airport. It will be quicker to get there from Euston than Stansted from Liverpool St, for example, and therefore quicker from most parts of central London. Now you might say that it’s still quicker to get to Heathrow / Gatwick / Luton, and it will be, but there are still nearly 30 million people a year who choose Stansted over other London airports and I think I’m right in saying that well over half of them are to/from London.